There is SO much that can be discussed over the readings
this week! Here are some questions and wonderings to ponder from this week’s
readings. Pick one or two, and let’s
make an effort this week to build on each others' conversations in regard to
where the discussion may lead us this week.
Schiro
Schiro states
that children of a Learning Centered Ideology are organisms that naturally
create meaning, and thus knowledge for themselves as a result of interacting
with their environment; in addition, children contain their own capabilities in
regard to growth (pg. 133). I wonder, despite
an engaging environment of activities and experiences, what happens if students
do not have a content area’s background knowledge, and students do not receive
direct instruction within the content, how could they create the highest level
of meaning that might be possible? According
to the Learner Centered ideology, knowledge requires a personal connection
before it can become a “way of knowing. Wouldn’t
deeper understanding and “ways of knowing” occur if background knowledge,
direct instruction, and activities and experiences were given?
According to Schiro, a critical component of the Learner
Centered Ideology is the child’s self-concept, and maintaining that if children
have a “robust self-concept”, then children will initiate and take
responsibility for their own learning” (pg. 134). I wonder if Learning Centered curriculum
developers and educators believe that all children have the innate
capabilities to grow and perpetuate their own motivation to learn?
Perhaps the Learner Centered ideology would acknowledge that
knowledge could occur through transmission; however, to gain knowledge on a
more meaningful and deeper level, an individual needs to interact with others
through experiences, activities, and reflection. Schiro states, “The Learner Centered educator
emphasizes the learning person rather than knowledge…meaning making abilities
rather than the knowledge of objective reality that they possess” (pg.
144). I’m thinking the Learner Centered
view of knowledge relates to a person’s abilities to include critical thinking,
being rational in decision making, looking at multiple perspectives without
bias, and the ability to construct meaning independently. What do you think the
response of the Learner Centered educator or curriculum developer would be in
response to my questions or inferences?
We experience a Learner Centered and constructivist
perspective of learning in our Curriculum Theory class. Each student in the class has individual
cognitive structures, learning styles, and is at different stages of
development in regard to our abilities to respond to the stimuli that is given
by Dr. Beach. Would you also say (without lamenting over the question), that
our class reflects other facets of contrasting ideologies in regard to learning,
teaching, and our acquisition of knowledge, such as Scholar Academic,
Behaviorist, or Social Efficiency Ideologies?
Do you feel a sense of knowledge construction and
reconstruction during the learning activities of our class? What enables or hinders the reconstruction
process of your learning to take place?
Why?
Schiro states, people’s conceptions of “house” or “justice”
is not so different where people are not able to communicate about the topics;
however, different people will have different conceptualizations of the
topics. I wonder if one of the reasons
that Learner Centered education can be challenging for many teachers and
students is due to the environment where knowledge is being constructed through
the processes of assimilation, accommodation, and reconstruction among students
that exist at different cognitive structures and learning styles? Do you think that all preservice teachers can
be “trained” for a Learner Centered teaching role, or do you think they must
have the innate personality to be able to conduct learning within this
style/type of environment?
Noddings
In Chapter 6, Educating
for Home Life, I have to smile. I’ve
spent much of my life “fighting” for the same opportunities that men have been
given most of my career life. Few
schools that have had Home Economics are now retitled Consumer Sciences, which
have taken away the type of curriculum that Noddings discussed in this chapter.
These courses, if they do exist, have been tied to an EOY (end of year
instruction test). I’m afraid the
Learner Centered curriculum developer would not approve of the present
direction of this content. What are your
thoughts?
As I was reading Chapter 9, Educating the Whole Person, I kept thinking of different ways I
would or would not approach the subject of spirituality in my classroom. I couldn’t help but think of how Mindfulness has entered education, and
become popular with administrators and workshops. I was wondering if anyone else had the same
thought?
Barbara, I’ll start with one of your Schiro questions: “Would you also say...that our class reflects other facets of contrasting ideologies in regard to learning, teaching, and our acquisition of knowledge, such as Scholar Academic, Behaviorist, or Social Efficiency Ideologies?” I also see the LC (Learner Centered) approach at work in our class. We learners engage in small group discussions that help each student construct knowledge. We are responsible for the construction of knowledge, but Dr. Beach, the presenter/facilitator/diagnostician is “always in charge of determining what will or will not be included as an activity that [we] learners might engage in” (Schiro, 121).
ReplyDeleteThis past week, I arrived to class settled on everything there is to know about SE (Social Efficiency) ideology. I was so proud of myself - I’m sure my groupmates noticed me self-congratulating at the start of our discussion. They were gracious, though. A funny thing happened, however - I could hardly use any of my notes. They just did not fit with our manner of group discussion. I had to reconstruct my expression of my understanding of SE in a way that made sense to, not just myself, but to the other two as well. It turned-out to be a nice exercise in critical awareness for me.
Concerning contrasting ideologies, I’ve noticed, during a couple of sessions, a collective “sigh-of-relief” when it’s time to just sit back and “receive the knowledge”. I’m referring to when Dr. Beach shared with us a listing of types of knowledge. We amateurs listened and/or took notes as the scholar/mini-scholar transmitted information to us in a SA (Scholar Academic) fashion. Discussion and debate seemed to be unnecessary, and construction gave way to unilateral instruction. I say “collective sigh-of-relief” because the instruction came toward the end of class, when we were all tired. I’ll add, though, that SA, seemingly by design and to everyone’s benefit, has not appeared very often in our class.
I would say that our class in not all LC, however like Reginald I definitely see LC at work in our discussion and "creation" of knowledge that comes from discussions.
DeleteBefore I read Schiro I would have said that except for a few times as Reginald mentioned above our class was full out LC (and that I conducted my class from a LC approach). Now I am not so sure. In the readings it seems that children in the LC ideology decide what to study as in the Pond Water curriculum pg. 101-104. Where I do not see that as a prevalent part in Dr. Beach's class or my own. I mean there are time like with our theorist that we do have choice but for the most part I feel we are being "guided" by Dr. Beach down a fairly narrow path.... would you agree?
Reginald, I'm curious. In what ways did your discussion have to be reconstructed last week? I have no idea who you were with (I can't remember who I was with!), but I was wondering why the conversation went in a different direction? Was you understanding expanded because you talked to people with different perspectives, or was it you found you had to work in a different way to get yourself understood?
DeleteAlana--I think about our class often as we continue to explore the different curriculum theories. I know Dr. Beach is a constructivist and challenges our thinking by guiding the discussions, and having us work with one another to share ideas and work together to formulate conclusions. I see a parallel with our class and the Pond Water curriculum. Even with the Pond Water curriculum, students had a somewhat limited choice if they wanted to study the ant hill, the flowers, the pond water, or photography.
DeleteI do see more guidance in our class than what I would envision in a Learner Centered K-12 classroom. Would this be because we are graduate students at a level where understanding of the content is important from an Academic Scholar?
Barbara, I simply had to work in a different way to get myself understood. What I had noted before class was in-line with what we agreed upon, in the small group and whole class discussions.
DeleteHere's my tangent:
However, as well all know, working alone is much easier than collaboration - which is what I think Dewey and Noddings want to convey, in part. If I'm remembering correctly, Noddings refers to a collaborative, more ecological approach to education not only as necessary for the 21st Century classroom, but also "hard work". I don't think that education has been recognized as "hard work", at least not since I've been teaching. Yes, we the teachers know it, but do those in political power in OKC and Washington, D.C. know it? My favorite passage from Dewey, so far, is, "Even the domain or art, songs, and methods of singing, subject-matter and technique of drawing and painting, come with the region on which an outside authority lays its sacrilegious hands" (Democracy in Education, p. 196).
Barbara good point... I am not sure about upper level k-12... I know that when I taught high school math the subject was very segerated from the other disciplines much like scholar academic. At different times of the year I would try to tie into other discplines, such as at Veterns Day looking at the different wars and costs over time as well as the number of deaths etc. But this was just me not a school wide idea. I also developed a "freshman project" where the students looked at the Oklahoma City Bombing from all different discplines, however by the end the student had done the math, English, science, and history sections but I don't feel the students really had much decision in what they had to do..... I guess I know I am a constructivist, but I am really double guessing if I have ever truly had a "learning centered" class, eventhough before this class I would have thought that yes definitely I did.
DeleteAlana,
DeleteI think what gives us all trouble sometimes is doling out labels. Labels for students, labels for types of instructional practices...we all may lean in one direction in what we value, how we believe children learn, but all in all we should agree on what are the outcomes that we want for our students after completing the "K-12 factory". For me, if we don't as a nation, a state, or a community have clear answers for that question, we just end up going in circles, faction against faction, unable to compromise toward meeting our agreed outcomes and goals for our students. Why is change so hard? Why is collaboration so hard? What does it take to meet in the middle in meeting the requirements that are needed for students to succeed in life out of school?
Barbara,
ReplyDeleteWhen reading Noddings Chapter 6 I was not a happy camper. I even re-read it several times, it seemed that Noddings was placing too much emphasis on the female and the overuse of "she" throughout the chapter. Only once in the chapter did I hear her stray from this, "the homemaker to whom I refer may well be professionally employed in the public world; 'she' may even be a man" (pg. 75). I do agree with Noddings that "home economics" courses do tend to be overlooked as important and usually are enrolled in by all females, but I feel that is what should be changed. Possibly a course "Economics of Life" where many things including budgeting and cost of living should be included. It just seemed to me that Noddings was reaffirming the way the world tends to be where women whether they work outside the home or not they are still in charge of all the home duties (or distributing these duties to other members of the home). I don't believe that Noddings would say this is the way she wants things but possibly she is just being very realistic about the way they are? What do you think?
Alana,
DeleteThis will be a topic for a few generations. I do believe we still have a lot to figure out though. Child-care is a very big issue for workingwomen--the cost, the availability, and the quality of care is not where many of us wish it would be. From where I have sat, women who work outside the home still do the majority of the scheduling, shopping, cooking, vacation and social planning for the family. For women I know that stay at home, many volunteer at schools, churches, and are very active in the lives of their families (not everyone, but many that I know).
I think Noddings was explaining that the role of women shouldn’t be overlooked. I think, like me, she comes from a vantage point where she sees women as the primary person who creates the home environment. That is not to say that men do not play a role, but it is different, and may continue to change with each decade. The woman is still the primary person within the home performing a significant role that Noddings wants to make sure is not ignored. Just within my lifetime, the role of women has been in a constant state of change. Perhaps more awareness to the challenges of parenting and what it means to create a home and family in the 21st century may be good discussions within our curriculum.
Alana and Barbara, I think both have valid arguments concerning Noddings’ chapter six. Change is necessary for a changing society, even in the view of domestic life. I believe, though, that Noddings’ refers to the woman more so than men so as to relate with what might be a 51% traditional reading audience. I’m in that possible 51%, but I cannot necessarily call myself “conservative” - that term (lately) tends to align itself with certain political figures, with whom I want not part. I’ll just say, I’m only voting this November because I consider it my civic duty. Sorry for digressing.
ReplyDeleteI think that Dewey is “spot-on” when he says, “it is so difficult to develop a philosophy of education the moment tradition and custom are departed from” (Experience and Education, p. 241). I think that once Noddings can appeal to a general audience, by acknowledging both the importance of the woman's traditional roles in domestic life as well as the need for change, more readers will “get on board” with her aim of stretching the disciplines in the classroom. I hear both an acknowledgment of the traditional and a call for progress in Noddings' statement, “The task of shaping home life has largely fallen to women, and there is almost nothing in our school curriculum on women’s work in the home”. (p. 73). At the very least, I interpret this statement as a call for men to “Help out!”. Contrary to (or maybe in-line with) popular belief, men can actually engage in “non-thought” for several minutes at a time. “Hey, dear. What are you thinking about?”, she asks. “Oh nothing,” he sincerely replies. I’d like to suggest that Noddings would say that boys should be educated to use those “nothing” times for engagement in things like domestic duties. I think such a shift in education would not be such a tall task in 2016, like Dewey suggests in the 1930s.
I have a question: Do you all agree that Noddings is appealing to both sides, traditional and progressive, in chapter six, similar to her approach in chapter five?
I feel that Noddings is appealing to the progressive side to help move and make change however I believe that she has to "convince" the traditionalist that the value in non-academic items are very important. I did like the way Noddings stated we would all essentially live somewhere... and we needed to be able to care for ourselves as well as our children.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to Dewey, the more of Dewey's work I read the more I feel like he could be talking about the society today instead of 100 years ago. In reading the Child and the Curriculum I felt that Dewey was describing school today and that sometimes it does seem the curriculum is almost against the child, especially if it was designed in a different way that how that child learns, or was possibly developed by white middle aged men for use in a mutli-cultural school.
The cultural diversity of the first half of the 20th century is certainly not at the level we find today. I admittedly have a blanketed view of there era in which Dewey wrote The Educational Situation and like articles, so I'm surprised to his vision of a more organic, societally sensitive approach to curriculum. I agree that much of what Dewey writes, in this week's readings, could have been written yesterday. I also find it sad, because Dewey's writings and Noddings' Education and Democracy in the 21st century are nearly equal in vision and yet separated by over ninety years. I'm amazed and saddened. Dewey states, "I am optimistic to believe that we are much nearer a solution of this vexed question than we generally dare believe" (The Education Situation, p. 112). If we take the whole Sputnik show out of the equation, do you think we would have already arrived at some of the curricula integration mentioned in Noddings? I imagine that civil rights and feminist movements, not to mention the influx of Hispanic cultures, were not well foreseen in the early 1900s.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the movements you mentioned were probably not thought of in 1900, but I am sure 90 years from now other individuals will be saying the same things about our time. I feel like in a way (perhaps women's rights) we have come a long way, but then I look at unequal pay based off of sex and then have to wonder why aren't we at an even better place? However I feel this discourse between the "ideal" and the "actual" is what keeps us looking for new avenues, keeps us curious and engaged, I believe these would all be representative of the LC ideology.
DeleteInteresting question Reginald. It seemed that the progressives were making positive headway in curriculum focused on the whole child; however, as you say, Sputnik and the push for the U.S. to never again allow another nation to be first, changed the trajectory. I'd like to think that the progressive movement in education would have continued sailing, but knowing now how education reflects what society has deemed necessary for the upcoming generation is what seems to be the reality. Within my world, where phonics seemed to be doing the job of creating readers, then moving to a Whole Language Approach of reading, which took us back several steps, and now back to phonics has taken its toll on students and teachers.
ReplyDeleteEducation has often been referenced as a pendulum that swings in one direction, only to swing back again. What I think is that education swings in a direction, but it swings in the direction of whatever "group", "dominant faction", or those in power give the momentum to initiate the swing. As you say, Reginald, it is hard to forecast how society will unfold, but if it wasn't for Sputnik, I believe it would have been another event or happening to keep the pendulum swinging.
Ladies, I have a couple of comments:
ReplyDelete1. Getting back to the last question in your first post, Barbara, I've also thought of how best to approach spirituality in the classroom. I adhere to a certain faith, but I find it so important to remember Noddings statement in Ch. 10: "It is not the job of educators to tell students what should bring forth a spiritual response. We should provide opportunities and possibilities, not indoctrination" (p. 129).
2. I never had the opportunity to get "hooked on phonics". It sounds like you did, Barbara. Did you, Alana? I'm always listening, as my students learn to read in Spanish, to hear who has a phonics background. When I ask students after class, "For how long did you study phonics?", they reply, "How did you know?" The difference in ease of pronunciation is stark between those who had phonics as opposed to those who did not. I understand that LC advocates, according to Schiro, adopt a whole-language approach. Might the whole-language approach be a push-back against the atomistic SE approach?
Well I did have phonics growing up in Texas I can still remember the different colored workbooks we had each year.... However I don't think it worked for me! I am awful at spelling and sounding out words... I feel like I read ok but when I don't immediately know a word I just read everything around it and try to figure out the meaning and then sometimes I feel like I have head a familiar word so then I just hope it's right.
DeleteI know when my own children were small I was never sounding out letters or words to them (we were counting and grouping) but I really feel this was because I never understood the phonics myself.
Hi all~, the simultaneous student's impulse has led me to visit here :), I hope my comment does not bother your discussion...:) I really like the discussion about spirituality that Noddings' pointed out, how nicely she put her suggestion - not indoctrination, but giving opportunity and possibilities, as it is the bases of education in democracy.
DeleteFor phonics, I see the SE's influence on the language arts field, and to be honest, phonics has became very popular in Korea since about 10 years ago. When I was young, I never heard of phonics at all - for Koreans and for many non-English speaking countries, phonics would be considered a new approach to teach English (still!). I agree with you Reginald and Barbara, that phonics locates in the quite opposite direction of the Whole Language approach (which means that it may hurt humanity when teachers point out what's right or wrong in the itemized components of phonics). I really want to learn more about the whole language approach, I may ask one of you tomorrow at our class.
Thanks for reading my comments (I'm eager to ask more questions, but...you know, I would say hi and bye here. :) Thanks!
John, my friend...so glad you popped in! I would like to challenge myself to learn another language with a whole different set of symbols, but I'll be honest, the whole idea is daunting. I still wonder why learning a foreign language is considered a discipline that is required for college--I was an Art History major and Classics minor back in my undergraduate days, and the several years I took French has not really served me in any way other than when I've been to France. No offense Reginald. :) It is one of those required disciplines that has never 100% made sense to me. Is the requirement of a foreign language somehow related and connected as a Scholar Academic component?
DeleteHi Barbara, I miss this discussion! lol.
DeleteTo me, yes, that requirement to learn an L2 in undergraduate may be connected to SA and also SE.
For SA's standpoint, learning different languages (probably the Latin) seemed considered in the scholar discipline. Under SE, learning English (for my case) is what the society out there really needs. What do you think?
Besides, I think that your experience in France, would be a good example of LC, because all the environmental aspects you had when you visit France may have helped you "interest " in learning, practicing, and meaning-making in French. This discussion reminds me of the "now or never" assertion that Dewey made. What you do think? Your classes in undergrad time left almost nothing to you because which never relate to your interests (the never situation, and the time in France would be "now" situation)? :)
Oh Alana---would Dr. Beach and i like to do a screener or two on you! I find that so interesting...I'll talk to you more about that in class. Reginald, I could talk to you about your first comment for days...that is my thing. I love to engage in conversation with students to have them explore their thinking in terms of spirituality without discussing one religion over another. Discussions are driven toward what does it mean to be kind? What does it mean to treat others like you would want to be treated? What does it mean to have hope in times of despair? What is hope? Those discussions lead to many beautiful discussions and push students in different directions to think about those broad questions. I picture Aristotle and Socrates on some grassy plain in Greece with the Parthenon in the background as they sip wine and eat from a basket of grapes by their side . They discuss life, life after death, hope, sacrifice, etc...I think I may have been born at the wrong time...
ReplyDeleteReginald--I did have phonics back in the early 60's, although I remember very little. Like many adults my age, we remember reading from the "Dick and Jane" readers, and we remember some of the phonics lessons, but luckily the greater majority of us are born with the phonological abilities to decode text--breaking out patterns within words with automaticity, but not necessarily knowing how or why we do it. We needed some initial instruction and the rest became a natural progression within our learning to read journey.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Whole Language is concerned...I do believe that was another pendulum swing--Dr. Beach taught during those times, and she is the expert what lit up that whole era, but I believe teaching in parts was believed not to embrace the broad spectrum of the reading components and experience. Great question for Dr. Beach to elaborate on...